[JURIST] The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) [official website] on Wednesday sued [complaint, PDF; press release] computer microchip manufacturer Intel [corporate website] for antitrust violations. The complaint alleges that Intel used its dominant market position to stifle competition. According to the FTC, Intel engaged in threats and other unlawful tactics to coerce computer manufacturers not to purchase chips manufactured by its competitors. Director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition Richard Feinstein said that:

Intel has engaged in a deliberate campaign to hamstring competitive threats to its monopoly. It's been running roughshod over the principles of fair play and the laws protecting competition on the merits. The Commission's action today seeks to remedy the damage that Intel has done to competition, innovation, and, ultimately, the American consumer.

[JURIST] The Supreme Court of Pakistan [official website] on Wednesday struck down [order, PDF] the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) [text], which granted President Asif Ali Zardari [official website] and 8,000 other government officials immunity from corruption charges. A special 17-member panel of court ruled unanimously that the NRO is unconstitutional [Dawn report], paving the way for corruption charges to be brought against Zardari. Zardari is immune from prosecution while in office, but challenges to his eligibility [NYT report] as a presidential candidate are expected. Many other government officials, including the interior minister and the defense could face immediate prosecution.

The court began hearing [JURIST report] the legal challenge earlier this month. The NRO was signed [JURIST report] by former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] in 2007 as part of a power-sharing accord allowing former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto [BBC profile] to return to the country despite corruption charges [JURIST report] she had faced. The ordinance also applies to similar charges against politicians who were charged, but not convicted, of corruption between 1988 and 1999.

[JURIST] The Swiss government announced Wednesday that it has agreed to accept [press release] one Uzbek Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainee for resettlement "on humanitarian grounds." The unidentified detainee has been held at Guantanamo since 2005 but has never faced charges. The detainee has been cleared for release since 2005, but could not be returned to Uzbekistan for fear of persecution. According to the statement from the Swiss Justice Ministry [official website]:

The USA's accusation that the man has links with terrorist groups has never been proven. As long ago as 2005, the imprisoned Uzbeki was classified by the USA as "cleared for release". The US authorities have assured Switzerland that the man has been neither prosecuted nor convicted, and that he constitutes no danger to public safety. In addition, Switzerland has not had any feedback from any other foreign security authority that would render the transfer unjustifiable.

[JURIST] The British Supreme Court [official website] ruled [judgment, PDF; press summary, PDF] Wednesday that a Jewish school discriminated against a boy by denying him admission because he was not "ethnically Jewish." The London secondary school, JFS [school website], denied admission to the boy, known as M, because his mother is Jewish by conversion, not by birth. The case turned on whether the school's policy was based on religion, which would be permissible, or based on race or ethnicity, which would be considered discriminatory. The five justices in the majority found the policy to be direct discrimination:

one thing is clear about the matrilineal test; it is a test of ethnic origin. By definition, discrimination that is based upon that test is discrimination on racial grounds under the Act.

[JURIST] The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) [official website] on Wednesday issued its first genocide charges against two former Khmer Rouge [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] leaders. Former deputy leader and chief ideologist Nuon Chea and foreign minister Ieng Sary [Trial Watch profiles] were charged with genocide in connection with crimes allegedly committed against Vietnamese people and ethnic Cham Muslims. The charges, issued by co-investigating judges in Case 002 [case materials], have been brought by victims of the regime who participate as civil parties [ECCC backgrounder] in the official criminal proceedings. Both defendants have already been charged with breaches of the Geneva Convention [ICRC backgrounder] and crimes against humanity.

Earlier this month, the ECCC rejected [JURIST report] a request by Ieng Sary's lawyers to examine two international judges for bias. Last month, the court heard final arguments [JURIST report] in its first trial, that of Kaing Guek Eav [TrialWatch profile; JURIST news archive]. Kaing was the first of eight [JURIST report] ex-Khmer Rouge officials expected to be tried before the ECCC. A verdict is expected in March.

[JURIST] A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed [transcript, PDF] charges of fraud and conspiracy against two former executives of microchip maker Broadcom Corp. [corporate website] citing prosecutorial misconduct. Judge Cormac Carney of the US District Court for the Central District of California [official website] dismissed [LAT report] charges against Broadcom's former CEO and co-founder Henry Nicholas and former CFO William Ruehle, saying that US prosecutors improperly influenced three key witnesses on whom both Nicholas and Ruehle would have relied to prove their innocence. Carney cited evidence that the lead prosecutor on the case, Assistant US Attorney Andrew Stolper, had provided information to newspapers about former Broadcom Chairman Henry Samueli in order to get him to plead guilty to similar charges. The judge also said that Stolper had sought to influence the testimony of Broadcom's former general counsel David Dull and former vice president of human resources Nancy Tullos. The judge also dismissed a civil complaint [JURIST report] by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) [official website] against Nicholas, Ruehle, Samueli, and Dull. The decision to dismiss was surprising since Nicholas's dismissal was without a motion and it took place during Ruehle's trial, which was all accompanied by the denial of the SEC complaint.

Nicholas and Rhuele had been indicted [text, PDF; JURIST report] in June 2008 for "conspiracy to disguise, conceal, understate, and mischaracterize compensation expenses Broadcom was required to recognize in connection with its stock options." Nicholas was also indicted separately on drug charges [indictment, PDF], and a hearing is set for February to decide whether those charges should be dismissed as well because of misconduct. The dismissal follows a similar decision in August by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] to overturn the conviction [JURIST report] of former Brocade Communications Systems [corporate website] CEO Gregory Reyes for backdating stock options [JURIST news archive]. The appeals court overturned Reyes's 2007 conviction and sentence [JURIST reports] finding that the prosecution had made a false assertion of material fact to the jury in the closing argument.

[JURIST] The lawyer for a Swiss Muslim said Wednesday that his client has filed a complaint at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] challenging Switzerland's recent vote to ban the construction of minarets [JURIST report]. Hafid Ouardiri, a former spokesman at the Geneva Mosque, alleges [Reuters report] that the ban violates his rights to freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination under Articles 9, 13, and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights [text, PDF]. The ECHR could take up to 18 months to decide whether to hear Ouardiri's complaint, and then it could be several more years before the court rules on the merits.

Last week, a group of Swiss intellectuals called for [JURIST report] the ban's reversal. Swiss Supreme Court President Lawrence Meyer also said [NZZ report, in German] last week that two suits have been filed in federal court challenging the ban's legality. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official website] has condemned the ban [JURIST report] as a form of religious discrimination. Last year, the Swiss government announced [JURIST report] that Swiss nationalist parties had gathered enough signatures on their initiative against the construction of minarets [initiative website, in French] to force a national referendum on whether the country's constitution should be amended to ban the structures. The initiative was originally sponsored by the anti-immigrant Swiss People's Party (SVP) [party website].

[JURIST] The European Commission (EC) on Wednesday agreed to drop antitrust charges [press release] against Microsoft [corporate website; JURIST news archive] after the company agreed to offer consumers a choice of web browsers [JURIST report]. The EC had accused Microsoft of violating fair competition rules by bundling the Internet Explorer browser with its Windows operating system. Under the agreement, European Windows users will have the option to switch to an alternative browser beginning next year. European Commissioner for Competition Policy Neelie Kroes said [remarks] that, "[m]ore than 100 million European computer users stand to benefit from the Commission's decision today. Microsoft Senior Vice President and General Counsel Brad Smith said [press release] the company is "pleased" with the decision. Rival browser makers Google and Mozilla, which had joined the case originally brought [JURIST reports] by Opera, also welcomed the decision [NYT report].

Microsoft has also faced antitrust charges in other parts of the world. In September, the Seoul Central District Court found Microsoft in violation [JURIST report] of South Korea's antitrust laws for bundling software programs with its Windows operating system. The court found the company's bundling practice to be in violation of fair competition rules and disruptive to the market. This was the second suit within a few months in which Microsoft was found liable for breach of South Korean antitrust laws. In June, the same court ruled that Microsoft violated antitrust laws [JURIST report] by packaging software with its Windows operating system, also dismissing requests for damages from two Korean software firms on the grounds that the damages were not sufficiently linked to Microsoft's conduct.

[JURIST] An assembly of Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday submitted [press release] an immigration reform bill in the US House of Representatives [official website] that would give undocumented immigrants an easier path to seek legal status in the country. The proposed legislation, which is titled the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 (CIR ASAP) [bill summary, PDF], was introduced by representatives Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Solomon Ortiz (D-TX) [official websites], and would require an undocumented immigrant to register with the federal government, pay a $500 fine, and learn English in order to receive a six-year visa that could eventually turn into a green card. The applicant would also have to pass a criminal background check and various other provisions. The bill would also add stiffer penalties for employers that hire undocumented workers, and would provide additional rules for foreign investors and those that seek to hire foreign workers.

The proposed legislation follows the Obama administration's announcement [JURIST report] that it would seek immigration reform early next year. Last month, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) [official website] Secretary Janet Napolitano [official profile] said that the proposed reform legislation would be a "three-legged stool" that combines effective and fair enforcement, an improved process for legal immigration, and a "firm but fair way" to deal with illegal immigrants who are already in the US. The proposed bill is also the first attempt at immigration reform since the failed [JURIST report] Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill [S 1639 materials] in 2007. At that time, detractors called the bill too lenient on illegal immigrants and said that by granting legal status to illegal aliens, the US was granting "amnesty."

[JURIST] Galleon Group [partnership website] hedge fund founder Raj Rajaratnam [Financial Times profile] and former hedge fund consultant Danielle Chiesi were indicted [text, PDF; press release, PDF] Tuesday by a federal grand jury in Manhattan on insider trading charges. The 17-count indictment includes charges of conspiracy and securities fraud for their alleged role in the largest hedge fund insider trading case in US history. Rajaratnam has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, promising to fight the charges. A lawyer for Chiesi, former hedge fund consultant to New Castle Partners LLC, said that she will also plead not guilty [WSJ report]. If convicted, Chiesi could face up to 155 in prison. Rajaratnam faces a sentence of up to 145 years. The indictment also seeks $20.8 million in forfeiture. The two are expected to be arraigned next week.

Rajaratnam and Chiesi were arrested in October and charged [complaint, PDF; press release] along with four other individuals and two business entities with insider trading. The complaint alleged that the individuals, including a managing director at Intel Corp., a director at McKinsey & Co., and a senior executive at IBM [corporate websites], provided Galleon Group and another hedge fund with material nonpublic information about several corporations upon which the funds traded, generating $25 million in illicit gain. The government of Sri Lanka has accused Rajaratnam of helping fund [Financial Times report] the Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) [JURIST news archive], a group designated as a terrorist organizations by several countries including the US. Although records show that Rajaratnam contributed money to the Tamil Rehabilitation Organization, a charity that the US claimed was a front for the LTTE, Rajaratnam denies funding the LTTE and has not been charged with funding the LTTE.

[JURIST] The Ohio Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF; press release] Tuesday that police must obtain a warrant before searching data stored in a cell phone, in the first ruling of its kind by a state high court. The court ruled 4-3 that a warrantless search of the contents of a suspect's cell phone violates the Fourth Amendment [text] prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure unless the search is necessary to protect the officers' safety or there are other exigent circumstances:

We hold that the warrantless search of data within a cell phone seized incident to a lawful arrest is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment when the search is unnecessary for the safety of law-enforcement officers and there are no exigent circumstances. Because the state failed to show that either of these exceptions to the warrant requirement applied, the search of Smith's cell phone was improper and the trial court was required to exclude from evidence the call records and phone numbers taken from the cell phone.